Article 1, Section 4 "No
public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious
worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical
establishment."

Article 3, Section 4 "The Legislature
shall make laws for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public
schools, which shall be open to all the children of the State and be free from
sectarian control."

Can religion and charters coexist in Utah
according to our Utah State Constitution? I don't know. Legal and
constitutional experts--what do you think?

We, as a society, have stated that having an educated populace is so important
that we have deemed it proper for government for government to pay for it. The
money is for educating kids. It is not collected to provide a jobs program for
teachers and educrats.

With that in mind, if the 3Rs are being taught
and the kids can meet certain levels on standardized tests If they are passing
the tests, the state, by definition, is getting their money's worth.

It shouldn't matter what else the kids are taught as long as the kids are
taught the 3Rs. If the school sends the kids home after teaching the 3Rs, no
one would care and the public would have gotten its money's worth. But if the
kids come back in 5 minutes later and are taught religion or politics or
whatever, who is harmed? The state isn't paying any extra money for teachers,
materials, utilities, etc.. since it already paid a set/fixed amount per pupil.
It isn't supporting religion or any one religion over any other viewpoint.

I see two possibilities with this. Either the schools who have a religious
background refuse public funding, or we as a society redefine the separation of
church and state. The Constitution clearly states that "Congress shall make
no law" regarding the establishment of religion. Various Supreme Courts
have broadened that simple statement to mean the states can have nothing to do
with religion, or support it in any way. The states are not mentioned in the
religion clause, leading one to believe that they are free to decide how they
will work out religion/state interactions. Whatever powers not specifically
granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people as a
whole. The states should be able to decide for themselves how they spend their
money.That being said, it is probably more feasible for religious schools
to not accept public funding. The people will have to take back control of their
children's education, and fund it themselves. We have allowed a bloated federal
bureaucracy to co-opt our responsibilities as parents and citizens.

The issue isn't whether religion can be taught, it
can. The question is over one specific religious view being taught in favor of
another, whether one set of religious scripture is discussed instead of another.
And even then, it is a matter of whether that discussion be supported by
federal or state funding.

In France, where Islamic dress was banned
in schools, it wasn't because the French Government hated the faith of Muslims,
it was to protect children from those students who would discriminate against
those who chose not to wear the clothing.

The same thing goes for
specific religious doctrine and prayer in our schools. Nothing stops a student
or group of students praying on their own. The problem is when students feel
undue pressure from other students or the administration to pray or are
subjected to religious education they may not want.

Besides, where
public schools are concerned, I would much rather trust the religious education
of my children to certified Institute teachers, at a time when my children know
enough to ask meaningful questions and make decisions on their own. A charter
school, like any other public school, is not that place.

Public schools all over this nation were establish to educate a citizenry in the
skills necessary for communication and commerce. Religion may have had a minimal
role in early schools with reciting the Lord's prayer or prayers at football
games and graduation. But in a country as diverse as our country is, it was seen
as prudent to let religion be left to the churches and not to the schools. But
even now there can be after school clubs or release time devoted to religion.

I feel that advocating Charter Schools organized around religion if
going in the wrong direction. While religion can be a great personal experience,
it seems to divide us as a society. The state does not need to support anything
that will divide our society. People are still free to get their religion at
church or at home, we don't need to make it a part of our education system as
well.

Echo, you need to check your information. Charter schools do not do better than
our traditional public schools. Look at the test scores again, please. Of the
top 100 elementary schools only 8 were charter schools and only one was in the
top ten. Charter schools are an unproven "reform" idea which is slowly
draining funds out of our traditional public schools which outperform them and
serve the most needy children.

Utah is like Brigadoon. Every 100 years Utah awakes from a deep sleep and lives
life for 'one day,' before going back to sleep for another 100 years. We're not
nearly as engaged with the world as we pretend to be. This story cycled months
ago but this is all there is to report on charters. Hardly. Where are the
stories of charter schools doing great stuff? Yes, Virginia, unlike someone
else, they do exist! I'm talking about schools daily doing what they promised
they'd do in their charter application for less overall funding than their local
district averages. And don't ask the UEA about this; Ask the districts and
charters directly what their per pupil spending happens to be to get an accurate
apples-to-apples comparison. Then condescend to visit one and see what goes on.
lds4gaymarriage really nailed it for anyone who works with and studies issues
outside of our fair state. And are there issues to be dealt with in charters?
Definitely. Some of the same ones that need to be dealt with in traditional
districts. Oh, well, back to sleep Brigadoon.

Bruce Cooper states that he likes the separation of church and state, but that
compromises can be reached. I totally disagree. That is why the Constitution
says what is says, there is no compromise. Americans seem to spend more time
trying to find ways around the law than abiding by the law. Why is it that
the right wing, conservatives, ultra-conservatives, religious zealouts and tea
party followers are in support of charter schools,(and said goverment funding)
and the violation of the separation of church and state, yet want to hold other
consitutional admendments to the letter of the law. Are you listening NRA
members and "more guns are better advocates?" The hipocracy
never seems to end. The right wing supports what they want for personal agendas,
without regard for right and wrong.

"It shouldn't matter what else the kids are
taught as long as the kids are taught the 3Rs."

Supposing they
are taught that it's alright to strap bombs to their bodies and set them off in
a crowded public square where you might find infidels. Would that be OK?

"But if the kids come back in 5 minutes later and are taught
religion or politics or whatever, who is harmed?"

If religion is
being taught there is harm... because the US Constitution and Supreme Court
decisions clearly show that no money, facilities, resources, etc., are to be
used to foster religion of any sort.

"The state isn't paying any
extra money for teachers, materials, utilities, etc.. since it already paid a
set/fixed amount per pupil."

The fixed amount per pupal is
computed using all costs including materials, utilities, etc. So any use would
be fostering religion

That Minnesota school was wronged by the
ACLU.

"Vouchers are the best way to help poor kids escape
poverty."

Vouchers should never be used to fund private schools.
There are public schools for the kids to attend. Private schools should be
funded by private money.

This is what is called a "Red
Herring" argument. It is a logical fallacy.

The issue under
discussion is religious influence in charter schools. By introducing economics
into your answer, you are attempting to distract the readers and keep people
from thinking about the Constitutional issues at hand, and instead focus on
something entirely unrelated.

In essence, you are stating because
some poor students benefit from charter schools, other violations should be
overlooked----ends justifying the means.

I hope this not a feature story designed to soften up the opposition to teaching
sectarian religious idealogy in Utah's public schools. There already exists
excessive bulling against not-mormon students in Utah's public schools with out
using tax dollars to make it worse. Thanks to the founders of the Utah
Constituion we allow broad religious EDCATION but not religious INDOCTRINATION.

SpringvillepoetThe issue isn't whether religion can be taught, it can. The
question is over one specific religious view being taught in favor of another,
whether one set of religious scripture is discussed instead of another. And even
then, it is a matter of whether that discussion be supported by federal or state
funding.

LDS4I agree 100%. My point is that any school, even
home schools, should get state funds if the kids pass standardized tests in
required subjects. If those Minn. kids did their school work and then at the
end of the school day they all went outside and then those who choose to stay
longer could come back inside and be instructed in Islam, I see no problem. The
state got its money's worth and no religion was taught during school hours.

squirt Of the top 100 elementary schools only 8 were charter
schools and only one was in the top ten.

LDS4If 8% of schools
were Charter Schools, you're right. If less than 8% are, they're statistically
superior. Compare the charter schools with other schools in the same local
area. If the public schools were great, charter schools wouldn't exist.

LDS4"But if the kids come back in 5 minutes later and are taught
religion or politics or whatever, who is harmed?"

wrzIf
religion is being taught there is harm... because the US Constitution and
Supreme Court decisions clearly show that no money, facilities, resources, etc.,
are to be used to foster religion of any sort...The fixed amount per pupal is
computed using all costs including materials, utilities, etc. So any use would
be fostering religion.

LDS4No state money would be used. If
the state gives $5000/kid (for teachers, materials, utilities, etc.. ) to
educate them, that money was all used, definitionally, to educate them. If the
kids leave after their secular education, then you're fine. If they stay for
religious instruction, the extra cost for teachers and utilities is not born by
the state, but by the school. The state money was already spent for the secular
education.

wrzVouchers should never be used to fund private
schools. There are public schools for the kids to attend. Private schools should
be funded by private money.

LDS4The purpose of the money is to
give kids a secular education. My above scenario does that.

The issue under discussion is religious influence in
charter schools. By introducing economics into your answer, you are attempting
to distract the readers and keep people from thinking about the Constitutional
issues at hand, and instead focus on something entirely unrelated.

In essence, you are stating because some poor students benefit from charter
schools, other violations should be overlooked----ends justifying the means.

LDS4As I mentioned in my previous posts, schools that educate kids
to pass standard tests in required subjects are, by definition, doing what the
state asks for the money they receive. If a school teaches those subjects from
9 to 3 and allows the kids to leave, you're happy. If the kids all leave and
then comeback in 5 min. later during NON-school hours to have an hour of
after-school Study Hall or an hour of religious training, no public funds are
being used (since they were used from 9-3 during school hours) nor is any
student forced into taking religion. They could leave at 3 or stay for Study
Hall.

If no public funds are used to teach religion, there is no
constitutional issue at hand.